Dawn Primarolo: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs is taking steps to remind taxpayers of the importance of providing up-to-date information as their circumstances change. That includes a publicity campaign, which will run from the new year, to remind claimants of their obligations. The Department is also piloting targeted approaches, again, to help to reinforce the message and remind taxpayers of their obligations. HMRC is also discussing with Citizens Advice how best to work together with a view to developing arrangements for working to support claimants better, including face-to-face support for the most vulnerable groups.

Dawn Primarolo: I deeply regret the hon. Gentleman's assertion that Ministers are somehow attempting to rubbish the parliamentary ombudsman—nothing could be further from the truth. Her recommendations are being actively considered by the Department. The Department is working closely with the ombudsman, the adjudicator and Citizens Advice to deal with specific problems that have occurred due to errors in the Department and computer problems.
	The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to assert that the tax credit system is somehow failing the communities that it serves. It serves 6.1 million families, the majority of whom receive their tax credit. It is assisting the delivery of the Government's strategy of helping people into work, supporting them in work, helping to eradicate child poverty and, most importantly, supporting parents in balancing their work and family responsibilities. That is not a failure, but a policy going forward, albeit with issues that need to be addressed.

Ivan Lewis: As I have said, we are aware of the concerns expressed. We are also aware of the benefits of pension tax simplification, which has been welcomed continually by anyone who has considered the issues. It is also not generally known that around 15 million pension savers can already invest in residential property. That has nothing to do with the changes to SIPPs. However, I once again reassure the hon. Gentleman that if we feel that they will have a seriously detrimental impact on our housing policy or on rural communities, we shall certainly consider that and, if appropriate, take the necessary action.

Stephen Dorrell: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a regular contributor on the international lecture circuit, including to the World Economic Forum, about the importance of competitiveness and productivity. The World Economic Forum, a body to which he regularly lectures, recently said that British competitiveness has fallen since 1997 from being fourth in the world to being thirteenth in the world. Do the Government accept that judgment, or will they demonstrate to the House and to the country why the World Economic Forum is wrong?

Philip Hammond: As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) said, the Chancellor blames the halving of Britain's growth on oil price rises. Will the Chief Secretary, in the Chancellor's absence, acknowledge the findings of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which claims that the impact of oil on this year's growth will be negligible? Is not the truth of the matter that the slowdown is home-grown? Does the Chief Secretary think it could have anything to do with the WEF findings that Government spending in Britain is now more wasteful than in Tanzania and that our tax system is less efficient than those of Ethiopia or Ghana?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman refers to a specific route of migration that has been taken advantage of by those who operate what we call Indian restaurants, but which are predominantly owned and populated by Bangladeshis. Part of the raison d'être for that was that those jobs could not be filled from the indigenous labour market because of a skills shortage. In fact, the people who come in and work in those restaurants make a significant contribution not only to the economy of this country but to the diversity of the community that we live in—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, among others, has enjoyed some of the products of their labour—and, in my view, the ability to be able to do just that in our communities, where we can celebrate our diversity, contributes to cohesion.

Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on giving a great deal of support in this area. The whole House would want to echo his comments with regard to the RNLI and the services that it provides for the country. He will also know that since 1997 the Government have undertaken two reviews to consider this issue. There are something like 250,000 charities, and a general exemption for all of those would produce astronomic costs, of the order that I explained to him in my previous answer. The review also demonstrated that it was extremely difficult, and nigh impossible, to reach a fair and principled position, and to be able to decide how some charities might get VAT relief and some might not. He referred to the Select Committee report, to which the Treasury responded, and I have noted his comments. I undertake to consider the matter again, but I hope that he and the House understand the tight and difficult constraints in relation to a complete exemption for all charities and the costs that that would incur.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister agree that far the most helpful way of reaching the millennium goals in developing countries is through free and fair trade? Will he say exactly what the Prime Minister is doing in the European Union presidency to break down trade barriers facing the developing world?

Andrew MacKay: May I be helpful to the Leader of the House and move off September sittings? Does he accept that when two senior, experienced, ex-Cabinet Ministers table an early-day motion, the House should take careful note? Does he agree that he should read early-day motion 994 in the names of my right hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell)?
	[That this House condemns the unprecedented campaign to mobilise chief constables to lobby honourable Members in favour of Government policy; fears that this is a damaging step towards the politicisation of the police; understands that the Government's threat to merge police forces has put additional pressure on chief constables, all of whom may shortly be up for reselection, to acquiesce in demands for them to endorse Government policy; regrets that some chief constables gave the measure their backing even though they and their forces had no local experience of the problems allegedly making it necessary; calls on them in future to leave lobbying and advocacy to others; praises the police for their courage and dedication in tackling terrorism; accepts that police have a duty to offer Ministers in confidence advice and evidence based on that experience; but believes the essence of Ministerial responsibility is that Ministers alone are responsible for the advice and evidence that they accept and the policy conclusions they reach; and deplores the Government's attempts to escape that responsibility by invoking the authority of public servants thereby embroiling them in politics.]
	It states clearly that it is wrong for the Government to encourage senior police officers to intervene in the political process. This is a politicisation of the police which is most unwelcome in our democracy. Can we have a guarantee that when the Terrorism Bill returns from the House of Lords, this disgraceful exercise will not be repeated?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary believes with some justification that he has been to the House quite a lot lately and I anticipate that that will continue today, so the hon. Gentleman's observation is not fair, nor borne out by the facts. I might say the same about his views on ACPO. When I was in Opposition I do not recall Conservative Ministers ever being reluctant to tell us of the views of senior police officers. Usually they were warning us that somehow or other we were failing to accept that opinion. It is a demonstration of how times have changed that now it is this Government—this political party—who are concerned about the views of the police and protecting the security of the British people while the Conservative party has disappeared off somewhere on the libertarian right.

David Chaytor: Following yesterday's events would my right hon. Friend find time for a debate entitled, "How the House deals with controversial issues"? Regardless of one's view—yesterday I was happy to vote for the 90-day maximum period—it would have been better if the matter could have been handled differently. Given the amount of legislation in the pipeline, which may be equally controversial, would it not be useful to air these issues for a longer lead-in period to build consensus both within and between the political parties?

Iris Robinson: Could the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the viability of public-private partnerships or private finance initiatives, particularly within the education sector as they are causing delays in providing a new purpose-built school which was earmarked for children with profound special needs at Torbain school in my constituency? At present they have to negotiate between out-of-date portakabins situated on a steep hill. I am sure that the House will agree that that is wholly unacceptable.

Geoff Hoon: I am aware of the considerable extra spending that has been made available in Northern Ireland to deal with a backlog of repairs and rebuilding in the education sector as well as in the health sector. It is important that we continue to use private sector funding through PPPs as a means of adding to the amount of capital spending that can be achieved. That has been successful, certainly in other parts of the country, and I am sure that it will be successful in Northern Ireland. Obviously there need to be proper checks and safeguards to ensure that that money is properly spent and is part of the overall Government spending alongside the private sector. From time to time that takes more time than would be the case if simple capital provision were made available, but the benefit to the whole country of that extra finance is that we can do more. We can rebuild and repair more schools, more hospitals and more public institutions.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that difficult issue concerning members of the armed forces and the security services. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will open the debate on the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. This is not an easy issue for anyone, and no one pretends that it is.
	The benefit that we get from moving forward with the peace process is clear. This is about reducing the level of terrorism in Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] Opposition Members who are commenting from a sedentary position should ask themselves whether they believe that it is better to see continuing terrorism in Northern Ireland or—[Interruption.] They are scoffing, but this legislation is necessary as it is part of the Good Friday agreement and the arrangements that were made with a terrorist organisation that for many years has been on ceasefire. We cannot have the salami-slicing logic that says that we can somehow make progress on peace and reduce tension and violence in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom without taking the difficult decisions that are necessary. This is part of a package. If we want a continuing improvement in the peace process in that difficult part of the country, we must inevitably take these difficult decisions.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his practical and realistic view of the September sessions. He was a member of the Modernisation Committee at the relevant time, so it is interesting for the House to hear to his thoughts in the light of our experience. One consequence of not having September sessions is that we need to examine whether there are other ways in which the Government can be held to account. I am certainly willing to consider his suggestion.

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	It is only a little over two weeks since the Bill had its Second Reading, but I do not think that anyone could claim that it has not been subject to proper scrutiny, both in the House and in the country more generally. The Bill has, very properly, been fully discussed and debated, and what we have clearly represents the will of the House. I reject the suggestion made by some hon. Members yesterday that there has been insufficient opportunity to debate it. We held the Committee stage on the Floor of the House for two days to allow all right hon. and hon. Members to take part, we introduced a second programme motion to extend the time available on Report, and, of course, we now have ahead of us much more time for Third Reading than is customarily the case.
	As the House will know, it had been my wish and that of the whole Government to proceed by means of consensus. To the degree that that has been possible, I pay tribute to my counterparts in the other parties for their co-operation and willingness to engage and talk about the various issues that we have had to address. However, I regret that it has not been possible to achieve consensus in all respects, in particular regarding the length of pre-charge detention. Nevertheless, the Government have made it clear all along that if, for any reason, consensus broke down, we would not hesitate to press ahead with measures that we felt were necessary in the fight against terrorism.
	We remain of the view that the offence of encouragement to terrorism is needed and that it needs to be framed in the way in which the House has now agreed. In line with our manifesto commitment, it needs to encompass the glorification of terrorism, and I am glad that the House explicitly endorsed that again yesterday. There is no reason why people should be allowed to glorify the terrorist acts of others in such a way as to encourage others to prepare and commit acts of terrorism.
	As we always intended, and announced as long ago as July, we have created new offences relating to acts preparatory to terrorism and terrorist training. We have also created a new offence of attending a terrorist training camp. No one has any good cause knowingly to attend a place where terrorist training is taking place.
	Moreover, the new offences will give the United Kingdom the ability to ratify two important international conventions—the United Nations convention on the suppression of nuclear terrorism and the Council of Europe convention on the prevention of terrorism. I am sure that the whole House will recognise the importance of working internationally in the fight against terrorism. The Bill will also extend the offence of criminal trespass to cover civil nuclear sites so that we can protect them, because they are an obviously tempting target for terrorists. However—I stress this, particularly in light of our debates—nothing that we are doing in any way disturbs the absolute right to protest peacefully.
	Let me turn to the issue that has probably attracted the most attention—that of the maximum pre-charge detention period. Yesterday the House made a decision on that. It is perfectly proper for it to reach such a decision and I make absolutely no complaint that Members of Parliament have exercised their ability to vote in the way in which they have all individually chosen. What I do regret is that the House has chosen to ignore the professional advice of our law enforcement and prosecution agencies, which we employ to protect us from the very real threat that we face from terrorists. I believed that a maximum pre-charge detention period of 90 days was in the best security interests of the country and I remain of the view that we were right to take the course that we did. Nevertheless, and for the avoidance of doubt, the Government accept the decision that the House has taken and we will not be seeking to overturn it in another place.

David Winnick: I welcome that. The most important consideration is that the House has an opportunity to debate every year, if necessary, the powers of detention. However much we disagree about 90 or 28 days, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reject with contempt allegations made—outside, of course—that those of us who have a different view, and 28 days was the majority decision, have any less understanding of the acute terrorist danger that our country faces from mass murderers? We are surely at one on this. I hope that he shares my contempt at the some of the stories that have appeared today.

Dominic Grieve: May I take the Home Secretary back to another point, away from such contentious issues? He said that the annual renewal clause, which was moved by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and which I supported, will have to be recast in the other place because it was incomplete. I have no objection to that, but why did the Government not move their own renewal clause, thus obliging the hon. Gentleman to move his own? Was that in a fit of pique? I fail to understand why that was not done yesterday, when the provision was on the amendment paper?

Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend was talking about the sunset clause. If in a year's time we choose not to renew, we will go back from 28 days to 14. Many of my constituents who have been in touch with me today and who have been speaking on BBC Radio Wales and elsewhere want Parliament to consider an extension in a year's time, if the police still believe that that is necessary and if the circumstances in the intervening time suggested that it should be done. Will my right hon. Friend look at that?

Charles Clarke: I am certain that my hon. Friend is accurately reflecting the views of his constituents who have been in touch with him. It is always open to the Government to bring back further proposals if we wish to do so. I will shortly make a comment about that process. It is important to get all our terrorism legislation on to a very firm, secure and permanent basis.
	I shall turn to an issue that was raised briefly near the end of our proceedings yesterday, which is the definition of terrorism. I know that several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), have concerns about that. Even though the Government are not yet convinced that a more satisfactory definition is easily available, we recognise the level of concern about the issue among Members on both sides of the House. I know that the House will be keen to have a further opportunity to consider the definition of terrorism. Accordingly, the Government have invited the independent reviewer of our terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to carry out a review of the definition of terrorism. I do not think that anyone could cast doubt on his independence or his experience in these matters. I am sure that he will want to take account of the current initiatives in the European Union and the United Nations. As the House may be aware, the UN comprehensive convention on terrorism is currently grappling with just these issues. I am sure that he will also want to take account of the views that have been expressed in the debates that we have had on the issue in the context of the Bill.
	Lord Carlile has said that, in performing his task, he will want to see contributions and views, including consultation with people in the House who can make a relevant contribution. I have asked him to complete this work within a year of commencement of the Act. I will lay his report before Parliament. Clearly I cannot predict at this stage what the outcome his deliberations may be, but I can say that we shall provide Parliament with an opportunity to debate and take a view on his conclusions. If consensus is achieved on a change to the existing definition, we would commit to bringing forward that change as soon as parliamentary time would allow.
	Lord Carlile is also reviewing the operation of the control order regime that we established under the Terrorism Act 2005. He will be reporting on that.
	More generally, I am extremely keen to see whether we can find some means of getting the legislation to combat terrorism in Parliament on to a secure and stable basis rather than having a series of emergency arrangements. As the Opposition parties know, we considered in this Parliament trying to bring together the Northern Ireland terrorist legislation that the House is considering in parallel with the legislation that is before us. For a series of reasons about the time of expiry of existing legislation we decided we would not do that. In general—I am not making any proposal at this stage—I am keen to get to a state of affairs where we arrive at a stable and fixed position that is the will of Parliament across the entire range of the legislation. That is the approach that I will follow. Lord Carlile is particularly important in his looking at these issues to try to move into that sort of process. In that context, I would listen to the proposals being made and take them more generally.

Peter Bone: During the long debates that we have had, the Home Secretary referred a number of times to a small number of people who will be detained for more than 14 days without charge. Outside this place, "a small number" has been interpreted as being fewer than five, fewer than 12 or fewer than 20. Can he give us an idea what he has in mind as a small number? If it is greatly different in practice, what will the Government do about that?

Dominic Grieve: The Home Secretary will recall that, when we met, I picked my words with great care. I said that I took the view that 28 days was the outer limit of what was acceptable. If he had then come back to me and said that he had some other variant to offer, I would have had to consider it, as would all hon. Members. If he had come back and said, "We think 28 days is too short, but we have decided that 30 days is the right period", it would have been extraordinary if the House had not given serious thought to what he was saying.
	The Home Secretary said that he was going to come back with an alternative, which we would have had to consider in debate. I do not know what happened—well, I have an idea of what happened next. I think that he was prevented from doing that because the Government, greatly to their discredit, took the view that it would be better to adopt a populist stance, to browbeat MPs and encourage newspapers such as The Sun to describe them as traitors if they did not sign up to the Government's agenda, to wheel in senior police officers to behave in such a way as is incompatible with their position as Crown servants, and to tend to their politicisation in a way that is massively undesirable and which, I regret to say to the Home Secretary, we have also seen in respect of other parts of the civil service on other occasions. All those things were done so that the Government could have their way over the figure of 90 days which, as the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) so tellingly highlighted, has never had a proper justification.
	I believe that the House acted correctly in wanting to protect people, and in wanting to protect freedom. A balance needs to be struck between those two things, as I am sure the Home Secretary would concede. After all, if we did not have such a balance, we would sanction indefinite detention before charge, and I would not accuse even the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister of wanting to do that.

Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend is making a very good case, and he is doing so very moderately. Does he agree that there are occasions on which Ministers write to all Members of Parliament to point out that a particular course is being taken, and to urge us to support it? Would it not have been the best possible course of action in this case to have written to all Members and made a coherent case that we could have contemplated in the privacy of our own offices, so that we could come to a sensible decision?

Alistair Carmichael: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. [Hon. Members: "North."] I am sorry; I meant the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Bill Etherington), although it is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I have heard the hon. Member for Sunderland, North speak on two occasions in recent weeks, and on both occasions he has treated the House to a remarkably sound first-principles exposition.
	Today's debate offers the House an opportunity to take stock, to reflect on yesterday's events and the debates of the past few weeks, and to consider—in a more measured way than was possible yesterday—how we should proceed from here. It is unfortunate that the Home Secretary is not present, because I was going to say something nice about him. I have had substantial disagreements with him on this subject over the past few weeks, and I believe that he has made a number of mistakes—and that mistakes have been made for him, notably by the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, he responded to the immediate aftermath of yesterday's vote with a remarkable degree of personal dignity, for which I give him credit. I must qualify that by saying that he rather blew it today with some of his comments about certain of his hon. Friends.
	The Home Secretary also said that he found Liberal Democrats difficult to debate with. I considered that to be a remarkable piece of praise, for which I should thank him. I would have thought, though, that compared to debates with some of his own Back Benchers, debates with Liberal Democrats would be models of straightforward simplicity.
	The replacement of the 90-day period and the amendment to 28 days has removed a major barrier to our support for the Bill. It indeed gives me and my hon. Friends some reassurance that we can begin to work with this Bill. For that reason, I place on record the fact that we will not oppose the Bill on Third Reading today. If others choose to divide the House, we shall not be with them. We nevertheless view the legislation very much as work in progress. It is beyond doubt that there remains substantial scope for improvement. I want to take some time to highlight a few of the remaining areas of concern from the point of view of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
	On clause 1, it is important to reflect and acknowledge that we have come a very long way from the original views expressed by the Government and the Home Office earlier this summer. The continued inclusion of glorification within the clause, however, remains unsatisfactory, as does the formulation of recklessness, which needs to be fixed. Those matters will be dealt with again in the other place. The concerns of academics about many of the offences in part 1 have not had a proper or full airing. They will also have to be dealt with, sadly, in the other place. We also want to put on record the fact that we remain concerned about the lack of proper statutory defences in respect of clauses 6 and 8.
	Clause 17 deals with the commission of offences abroad and it is right to welcome the substantial amendment and restriction of the clause's scope that the Government put into the Bill yesterday. It is still far from a model of clarity, however, and it may help the House if I read out the amended provision in clause 17, which refers to
	"an offence under section 1 or 6 of this Act so far as it is committed in relation to any statement, instruction or training in relation to which that section has effect by reason of its relevance to the commission, preparation or instigation of one or more Convention offences".
	The vagueness of the term "relevance to the commission" remains problematic and could eventually cause some difficulties. It would be an excellent point for our noble Friends to deal with.

Alistair Carmichael: Proceedings on this Bill have demonstrated that, if given the opportunity, this House can be trusted to do the job that it is here to do in holding the Executive to account and properly scrutinising legislation. The fact remains that the time allotted to us was inadequate for the job in hand. It worries me that we are sending the Bill to the other place with so many unresolved questions. As is the case with so many provisions in the Bill, clause 17 still suffers from the absence of a proper definition of what is meant by terrorism.
	I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement from the Dispatch Box today of a review that is to be carried out by my noble and learned Friend, Lord Carlile. I greatly look forward to participating with my hon. Friends and other Members in that review. Implicit in that offer, however, is the Government's acceptance that they have not got it right. Given that we have 12 months before we can revisit the provision, we seem to have legislation that will be firing on something less than all cylinders for the course of those months, so we should not be satisfied with that. In welcoming the review, I also say to hon. Members in this place and our noble Friends in the other place that they should not feel that this is the end of the story on the definition of terrorism. If we can come up with a better definition than the current one, it is still open to my noble and learned Friend to review it, if he feels it necessary.
	Clause 21 concerns the grounds of proscription and I can tell the Minister that we had an excellent debate in Committee, particularly in respect of the impact of the inclusion of glorification within the clause. It is a matter of substantial regret that we were not able to revisit that point yesterday on Report.
	Finally, I want to say a few words about clause 23. It is now apparent that 28 days is the settled will of the House and I believe that it will be included the final form of the Bill. In our view, there remains scope for improvement and I remind the House of the terms of our amendment yesterday. I am uncomfortable with the idea that 28 days should be automatically available. Liberal Democrats would prefer to put some locks on the availability of extensions from 14 to 28 days. We would like that extension to be made available only where there was evidence to be obtained from abroad or where there was some issue awaiting a further outcome of an analysis of evidence or perhaps decryption. A judge should be required to be satisfied that no other terrorist charge can be brought. Given the terms of provisions relating to acts preparatory to terrorism, which will eventually be passed with the Bill, it raises the bar significantly. The judge should also be required to approve any further questioning that is to be carried out.

John Bercow: I strongly agree with hon. Gentleman about the need for some check or constraint on the operation of the 28-day period, as agreed in the amendment. There are two reasons why that is important. First, as I said earlier to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Bill Etherington), many of us voted for the 28-day period only in order to prevent something worse that would otherwise have appeared in the Bill. Secondly, there is the simple principle that, in respect of the police and intelligence services as with any other organisation, work tends to expand to fill the time available.

Alistair Carmichael: That is a truth that we can understand and accept without any difficulty on both sides of the House.
	My other concern is much more fundamental—that the longer a person is held in custody, the greater the likelihood that eventually a court may see that any evidence obtained from that person will have been obtained under duress. Such evidence would then be inadmissible, leaving us with the prospect that, ultimately, the prosecution will be unsuccessful. In that case, either terrorists will go free or people who have had serious allegations placed against them may never have a proper opportunity to vindicate their name because they are seen to have been released on a so-called technicality.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman's point speaks for itself and I agree absolutely. As someone who used to earn his living in the criminal justice system—mostly as a defence solicitor, but for a number of years I was a prosecutor—I have seen at first hand the conditions in police stations. In most cases, they are certainly not suitable for a lengthy detention, and the same is true of the conditions in prisons, particularly—dare I say it?—those in which remand prisoners are held. It is the ultimate irony that the conditions in which a person is held on remand are infinitely worse than those in which a person is held post-conviction.
	We Liberal Democrats will be interested in exploring with Ministers how we can monitor the number of cases that may be dealt with in the extended detention period. I suggest in the broadest possible terms that we could have some mechanism for triggering a report to Parliament on the operation of this part of the Bill once a certain number of detentions has taken place. That would go some way towards addressing the concerns that were expressed earlier about what constituted a small number of cases. We, as parliamentarians, are duty bound to keep the closest possible eye on that issue.

Alistair Carmichael: That question relates to cases where a charge other than a terrorist is charge is brought in the first instance. In Scotland, at least, it would be for the court to decide whether or not a person is admitted to bail. Such a question would be determined on the basis of the procurator fiscal bringing charges. The concept of police bail is one with which I have no familiarity, but I see no barrier to questioning taking place after someone has been admitted to bail. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows of examples to the contrary. I am mindful of the fact that I am skirting around a subject—English evidence and procedure—in which I am scantily qualified.

David Kidney: Surely the point is a very obvious one. We are talking about a few cases of suspected terrorism. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that someone who is granted bail would hang around to be questioned, that is rather fanciful.

Alistair Carmichael: I have been quite generous to the hon. Gentleman, so I will not give way again.
	There are a number of matters outwith the scope of the Bill that need to be addressed, such as the PACE code. We also have the right to ask why section 57 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 has not yet been brought into force. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) did point out to me last night, however, that the intelligence services commissioner's report of earlier this year makes it clear that section 57 has not been introduced yet because the extent and nature of encryption has not been as great as was envisaged when the Act was passed by this House. Members who have put great reliance on encryption would do well to consider that point.

Kenneth Clarke: Hon. Members on both sides have been resisting for many years the simplistic argument that the criminal law should be written in line with the opinion polls of the day. I can remember when the vast majority of the public would have supported hanging and flogging. Many police officers have expressed great disquiet over the years about the constraints on their powers of arrest, questioning and restraint, and they have pressed for more powers. Heaven forfend that we see the day when the criminal law, including the most essential provisions that bear on the liberty of the individual, are determined by focus groups or newspaper headlines and leaders. The arguments used by Ministers on occasion, both inside and outside the House, have strongly suggested that that is the approach that we should adopt.
	We have been told to consult our constituents on the issue. I live near the constituency of Sherwood and I was astonished to hear that the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) has been showered with representations on the issue. I have received only two, one for and one against. I might ask my two correspondents what their feelings were based on and what they thought was lacking in the powers available to the police and the present period of detention of 14 days. I could ask them what had led them to the conclusion that 14 days, which was introduced only in January last year, was too short and that 90 days were necessary. I suspect that neither of my constituents, enlightened though they may have been by the opinions of The Sun, would have been aware of the present constraints, the basis for arrest and charge or the present state of the law. If they had been asked what the case for 90 days was, I would have been interested to see if they could have produced a response, because no Minister has yet been able to provide any concrete argument to explain why 90 days is preferable to 14 days, except that I should ask my chief constable. That is what is at the heart of the legislation, and that is why the House has done a good job putting it in its present state.
	The only argument that has been introduced to justify the provisions in the Bill that extend the law—the extension to 90 days and the creation of the new offence of encouragement of terrorism, which are the two dramatic and draconian measures—is that they are needed to face the new threat of modern terrorism. We are told that we must now understand that what we have done in the past to waive our normal civil liberties to deal with extremist terrorism—mostly from Ireland—is overtaken by the modern terrorism, for which the rules of the game have changed. That, we are told, is why we need to toughen up particular provisions.
	I find that argument faintly preposterous. I do not like being fobbed off with the argument that I do not understand modern terrorism. Apparently, Irish terrorists were simpler folk and less sophisticated measures were necessary to deal with them. They were decent fellows, apparently, who did not do too much harm and gave a bit of warning. They did not pose the risk of mass murder that we now face from disaffected Islamic youth. Well, I do not believe that. It contradicts my recollection that it was always a mistake to underestimate the sophistication and cunning of the IRA. It knew exactly what it was doing. It went in for mass murder and, when it gave warnings, they were usually slightly misleading, so that the police could be blamed for the casualties that resulted. I do not see that modern terrorism has moved on very much when I recall the outrages in public houses in Birmingham, in which young people were blown up by weapons deliberately designed to cause mass injury in two underground bars. Both were, by repute, frequented by under-age drinkers, which is why they were chosen. I could describe many other similar outrages.

Piara S Khabra: We have heard a lot of argument, discussion and debate in the House. There has been a lot of intellectual haggling and squabbling to try to win the argument on the question of civil liberties and the length of time for which people should be detained. Some of the barristers and solicitors in the House, as well as others, have exercised their vocal cords to try to win the argument.
	I broadly support the measures in the Bill. I recognise the unique situation in which we find ourselves in this country when fighting a terrorist threat of new complexity, with new evils and new murderous proportions. However, I was disappointed that hon. Members did not vote yesterday for a pre-charge detention period of 90 days, which the police requested for a good reason.
	My constituents and I are sadly no strangers to the evils of terrorism. In the middle of the 1980s, I was subjected to murderous threats against my life by terrorists and placed under armed police protection. Terrorists in the UK who were supporters of a separatist movement in the Punjab in India murdered three law-abiding members of my constituency in Southall and included me on their murderous hit list. Kashmiri terrorists murdered an Indian diplomat in Birmingham. Those terrorists were able to enjoy the freedoms of this country that were available to them and to foster terrorism here and abroad by disseminating their message and collecting money for their evil acts in the UK. Such opportunities should not be afforded to any terrorists in the future. In summer 2001, a Real IRA bomb exploded in Ealing town centre, in my constituency. It caused millions of pounds of damage to property, but fortunately did not result in the loss of human life.
	Evil and terrifying as the acts in my constituency that I have described were, they do not compare with the new terrorist threat that we face today in the wake of the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist atrocities when suicide bombers were intent on taking as many lives as possible in terrifying circumstances.
	We all know that we face a new threat of chilling proportions, and we have felt the reality of such a threat with the sad events of 7 July. The new threat, with its new complexities—with international terrorists using new technologies and computer encryptions—requires a new response by the Government and the country. New police powers must be given to tackle it. The Government have been pushed into that situation. They have no choice but to tackle the deadly new terrorist threat to protect the people of this country.
	The threat should be met in a united way. The whole House and country should be united. Sadly, the Tories show double standards. When in government, they wanted to introduce tough laws and always claimed to be the custodians of law and order. Now, in opposition, they enjoy the luxury of opposing parts of the Bill and of voting against police advice in spite of the evidence held by the police and security services. What hypocrisy!
	Three different categories of people spoke in opposition to the Bill and the 90-day pre-charge detention period. First, there were those who had genuine concerns about civil liberties. Secondly, there were those who were na-ve about civil liberties and the terrorist threat. Thirdly, there were those who indulged in cheap politics by opposing the 90-day amendment as a weapon against the Prime Minister and the Government.

Piara S Khabra: I am coming to that and will tell the hon. Gentleman why the Government had a good reason for introducing the 90-day detention. We are not dealing with an ordinary situation. It is unique. We are dealing not with ordinary criminals, but with terrorists and organised terrorist activity. They have a network everywhere and keep this country under the threat of terror. I agree with the Government's proposed detention period of 90 days. I hope that hon. Members who voted against the police advice of 90 days will not live to regret their decision. I also hope that the police will be able to halt the efforts of the murderous terrorists within the 28 days that the House, in its wisdom, has decided to give them.
	Detaining arbitrarily a massive number of suspects would be unpopular, counterproductive and wrong. As a Member of Parliament with a large ethnic minority population in my constituency, I am sensitive to people's concerns. However, I am also convinced that the vast majority of my constituents supported the proposed measures to deal with the threat. The new powers would, I believe, have been used only in exceptional circumstances, where there was strong evidence and it was felt necessary for an early arrest to protect the public from terrorist attacks.
	We never know how terrorists organise such activities. We know that they have the facilities in this country. Ours is a liberal country, which provides all sorts of protection, even to those who are engaged in such activities. We are dealing not with a catch-all situation, but with something that is designed with the new terrorist very much in mind. I believe that many human rights campaigners and civil libertarians take a na-ve view of the people with whom we are dealing. They wrongly charge the Home Secretary with trampling on their civil liberties.
	The UK is a mature, democratic country. The measures that we have been discussing will take effect only where there is strong evidence. Law-abiding citizens not involved in terrorist activity will have nothing to worry about.
	It must be emphasised that we are dealing with a completely new and dangerous situation. Terrorist and suicide bombers from across the world plan for long periods the mass murder of innocent civilians. Some Northern Ireland Members know what terrorists can do, how they organise and how much damage to the community they can cause. It is not ordinary crime where individuals are involved in murder, rape, robbery or fraud and where it is not necessary to detain suspects for a long period. When terrorism is involved and the lives of people are at risk, there is a need to detain suspects for a longer period to enable the police to investigate. When it is a well planned international conspiracy, we all know that al-Qaeda is involved.
	Only yesterday a bomb exploded in Amman in Jordan. Obviously that is not the United Kingdom, so terrorists are active throughout the world. We must face the fact that terrorism is in this country. Terrorists have the motive and intention of killing as many people as possible—innocent ordinary men, women and children. We must understand that that is completely different from other forms of crime.
	The security services and the police definitely need a longer period to detain and question terrorist suspects given the nature of their planning. I hope that 28 days will be enough, but I fear that it will not be—hence my support yesterday was for detention for 90 days.
	Those who were opposed to 90-day detention are forgetting these clear facts and treat the Bill as if it is an ordinary situation. It is not only the civil liberties of those who are detained that are put at risk. In my opinion it is complete nonsense to suggest otherwise.
	The Government have a responsibility to protect civil liberties and human rights of citizens as they go about their lives, safe from the evil threats of terrorism. So we must act to give the police the extra power that they need. The Bill's opponents can celebrate today and in future over the defeat of the Government, but they will feel sorry when terrorists strike in our cities once again.

Patrick Cormack: There are some fundamental misunderstandings in the hon. Gentleman's question. First, the country has never had the benefit of my services in government—I infinitely regret that and the country is much the poorer for it—and I cannot therefore speak as a member of a Conservative Government. However, it is the duty of advisers to advise, the responsibility of those whom they advise to listen, and the obligation of those who are in executive government to present proposals to the House. It is for the House to determine the ultimate content of the legislation.
	As I said earlier, much as I like the hon. Gentleman, he has been too narrow in his definitions and interpretations of yesterday. He has imputed party political motives to those who did not have them. On such an issue, many of us regard every vote as a free vote and would never be constrained by Whips to go into a Lobby if we did not agree. I can cite my frequent rebellions on Bosnia in the period of Conservative Government, when a few of us stood out because we believed that our Government were wrong. We all do those things. Just as I do not question the hon. Gentleman's passionate sincerity, he should not question mine or that of any other hon. Member. He, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, my hon. and energetic Friend the Member for Buckingham, who is about bounce up again, and I all go to our constituents, answer to them and ask them to send us back here. I know a bit more about that this year than do most hon. Members.

Patrick Cormack: A little reminiscence illustrates, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	This is a very important point. I am not advocating a return to those all-night sittings. What I am advocating is that Bills such as this should have more time. They should not be treated as emergency legislation when they should be the considered response of Government to an issue of great national importance. May I make a plea through the Solicitor-General that when we have amendments back from the other place, we should be given adequate time on the Floor of the House to debate those issues? It is crucial that that should be the case.
	Let me end where I began. There is a real need for the House to be united in fighting terrorism. That real need, in my view, involves a recognition, in contradiction of a fundamental principle of English law, in a sense, that it is better that one person be detained wrongly than that a bomb go off in the underground. The legislation must be so structured, however, that the opportunity for the wrong person to be detained must be the minimum, and there must be a consensus in the House that we have got it right.
	I will support the Bill tonight if there is a Division, and I am glad that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will do likewise. I am glad that the Liberal Democrats will not oppose it. I honour those who will do so, because I respect their motives. It is important, however, that as we search for consensus we do not just roll over, and that we always respect the honest, firmly held views, based on convictions, of those who might not agree with our beliefs and prejudices, of which we all have both.
	I wish this Bill a safe passage, and I hope above all that when it finally goes on to the statute books it will be a much better Bill.

Gordon Banks: I have listened intently to a large amount of the debate on the Bill over the past few days and weeks. I am glad that I have the opportunity to raise a few issues today, and I will be brief.
	In the early stages of the Bill's consideration, I had reservations about the Government's proposal for the pre-charge detention period of up to 90 days. I came to the opinion that there was significant movement by the Government in relation to issues surrounding the clause, brought about largely by the empowered discussion and knowledge of the House. In my mind, the proposal for seven-day judicial review by High Court judges, or by judges of the Court of Session in Scotland, and for defence representation at such hearings, addressed any sort of inappropriate use of the proposals. After having listened to much of the debate, however, I am left with the impression that our judiciary would have been unable to act in everyone's best interests in the face of a maximum 90-day detention period, which is not a view that I hold.
	I think that the sunset clause would have provided a suitable way of determining whether the 90-day period worked in practice. It would have allowed both Houses to analyse its use and effect, establish the average number of detention days and then possibly suggest to the Government that the legislation should be adjusted to fit the actuality. I supported the 90-day period last night because I thought that the mechanisms were appropriate. Both police forces in my constituency, Central Scotland and Tayside police, confirmed to me that they agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland on the issue.

Gordon Banks: The police were happy with the proposal. They are the experts, and I will be guided by them. I believe that we should be guided by the experts—the police and the security forces—because they are charged with protecting our security, and because they risk criticism and condemnation if they fail to keep us safe should further terrorist atrocities occur.
	I believe that new threats require new methods, and I believe that the current terrorist threat is new to our way of life. I am not convinced that, in its present form, the Bill deals adequately with the threat that we face. Much has been made of civil liberties and rights, but it has been largely one-way traffic. What about the human rights of people in this country not to be victims of terrorism—not to be maimed by suicide bombers, or killed by religious fanatics who want to destroy our very way of life?
	There has been much discussion about the 110-day limit in Scotland, and a certain lack of knowledge has been displayed. As a Scottish Member, I remind the House that the 110 days relate to the period between the charge and the case being brought to court. It never was and never will be an additional 110-day period of detention before charge.
	As we have heard, the pre-charge detention period would have been used only in exceptional circumstances. Today Members have mentioned five, 10, 15 and 20 days. In my view, those are low numbers. Indeed, I fear that 28 days will prove inadequate, and that something may happen that could have been avoided if the House had adopted "up to 90 days" yesterday.

Lynne Featherstone: It is hard to stand up against the tide of opinion in this country when it is ranged against us. It is also hard in the wake of the terrorist bombing not to react to that fear. However, I believe that the House is at its best when it keeps a cool head and does not abdicate its responsibilities. It was fear in the USA that got President Bush his second term in office.
	I have to say that I took huge exception to the Prime Minister calling anyone who opposed his view "woefully complacent". We are not, Madam Deputy Speaker. Sadly, I have no doubt that terrorists will strike again or that they may be trying to do so as we speak, but I do not believe that the 90-day provision will be the critical factor in stopping them. During Prime Minister's questions, we were told that the Muslim community—the community that will be most vulnerable, I believe, at the sharp end of the new detention powers—did not want to be seen as standing against the Bill.
	The Home Secretary challenged us to consult about the legislation in our constituencies, so I did. I consulted the secretary of the Wightman road mosque, which is just across the border in Tottenham, but serves Hornsey and Wood Green and Tottenham. I received a letter from that secretary, who is also secretary of the London Islamic Cultural Society. It reads:
	"Dear Lynne,
	Eid greetings to you and all your colleagues . . . I apologise for the delay in getting back to you in relation to the Anti Terror Bill currently being debated. Having discussed with quite a few members the general feeling/concern is:
	We do not agree with increasing the detention period from 14 to 90 days. There is concern about the methods used to interrogate suspects"—
	the methods used in the past under terrorist laws. It continues:
	"Many have been released without charge and are suffering mental health problems . . . these are innocent individuals. Even serial murderers have rights! We in the UK have been subjected to terrorism before where areas of the UK were bombed including MPs but at no time did the government find it necessary to bring in such radical laws . . . The Muslim community feel very vulnerable."
	It continues by making it clear that "the general feeling" was that the Prime Minister was trying
	"to undermine our civil rights and . . . this type of law is condemned by the UK and the US as being 'undemocratic' 'illegal' and 'inhumane' when adopted by other countries—but strangely when used by themselves it is 'protecting the country'. It reeks of double standards."
	The letter continues:
	"Lynne—please understand that we in no way agree with misguided individuals compromising our safety. No! This is totally unislamic, but you have to understand that our Muslim community are scared and concerned for the safety of their children and families. These laws prohibit even the law abiding families knowing what is happening to their loved ones"—
	or why they have been charged. It continues:
	"Our worry is that the unfairness of the actions will give rise to more and more people feeling trapped, alienated, seeing the bias, feeling discriminated against".
	I am not sure who the Prime Minister was talking about when he said that the Muslim community would not react against the proposals. The rest of the postbag on this issue has been a 50:50 split.
	I want to tackle another aspect, as I understand that in Andy Hayman's letter—[Interruption.]

David Anderson: May I first thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael)? As a lifelong fan of Sunderland football club, I am over the moon to hear that anybody follows Sunderland because we are desperate for support wherever we can get it.
	I welcome the concern and interest with which the Government have listened to the voice of public servants in this debate and the time and energy that they have put into letting us know what the police know. I hope that that bodes well for the future and that we listen to public servants and the organisations that represent them when we are dealing with health and education reforms.
	No one is unaware of the importance of this legislation. Despite the long, sad history of terrorism that these islands have been subjected to over the past 35 years, we face a situation that, for many reasons that have been well rehearsed in this Chamber over the past few days, is unprecedented. I will not rehearse those reasons again. We have had masses of information—whether it has been good, bad or indifferent, we have had lots of it from many sources—particularly from those to whom we turn when we want them to look after us and our people. They believe that this unprecedented threat warrants draconian measures that have no parallel in any period of our history. We decided, in our wisdom, not to give them the powers that they sought, but whether we agree with 28 days, 90 days or something in between, we must not let the situation that we face prevent us from looking at this law in the same way as any other. We have to be convinced that although it might be right and proper to use strong measures to counter this very real threat, we have constructed the law so that it cannot be perverted or misused in future.
	Earlier this week, I raised with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and with chief police officers—the personnel concerned with security in this country—the way in which most right-minded people viewed existing laws as being abused during the miners strike in 1984–85. At that time, police were using Road Traffic Acts and section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 to halt miners at the Dartford tunnel and tell them that they were not allowed to travel the 200 miles to Nottingham, even though people were trying to enjoy their legal right to picket. We had exclusion orders given as bail conditions, which meant that miners were separated from their families and communities, sometimes for months on end. Perhaps most seriously of all, we saw the use of the Riot Act at Mansfield and Orgreave, out of which, ultimately, no cases were proven. The impact of the application of those laws had the desired effect sought by the Government of the day, who, after all, believed that the people concerned were the enemy within. Miners and their union were prevented from using their right to picket and convince others to support them; the misuse of those laws took them out of the game. We hope that these laws will not be used in that way.
	I have been advised, and I accept, that the situation is not the same as in 1984. If the Bill had been tightly drawn, so that it could never be used against anyone other than those we are facing today, I would have felt more comfortable with the proposals right from the start. I also have to face up to the fact that our job is not just to prevent innocent people from being locked up, it is also to prevent innocent people from being blown up. Like everyone in the House, I hope that I do not have to visit a mother or father in the next few years and say, "I'm very sorry that your son or your daughter was locked up when they should not have been." Bad as that would be, surely it would be worse to go and see a mother and father and say, "Sorry your son, your daughter, has been blown up. That should not have happened and I might have been able to stop it."
	That is the real challenge that has faced the House over the past month. We must face up to our responsibilities. I believe that hon. Members have acted in good faith and shown good judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Bill Etherington) is a good friend of mine, but he was also my leader and mentor for many years in my previous existence. I respect what he said today and I hope that he reciprocates my feelings.
	I believe that we should have given the police the 90 days for which they asked. I accept that what we have given them represents an extraordinary step, and I look forward to the day when we are able to take it back because they do not need it any more. That day should be the real goal for all of us in the House.

Peter Robinson: This has been a challenging Bill for all of us in the House. Those of us who have sat through all its stages will know that it required us to dig deep into our consciences and reach a considered judgment on many serious issues.
	I hope that the Government do not come to believe that they have been defeated. They have produced a Bill that will offer a considerable advantage in the war against terrorism. The one issue that has divided the House should not be allowed to cloud the overall impact of the Bill, much of which, in its amended form, will be of great value.
	I want to touch on three issues. First, my colleagues and I will support the Third Reading of the Bill, even though we remain concerned about the question of glorification. Those proposals are drawn very widely and we are worried about some of the possible uses to which the clause may be put. We are also concerned that the Director of Public Prosecutions is the only safeguard against abuse of the provision. However, the overall benefit of the legislation is sufficient for us to set that concern to one side and perhaps to hope that the other place may be able to take some corrective measures.
	We have been mindful throughout the process that this is a Terrorist Bill. At every stage that has been at the forefront of my mind, particularly coming from where I do in Northern Ireland. The Province that I represent has suffered considerably over the past four decades. Members who represent Northern Ireland know better than most what the dangers of terrorism are and what the impact of various elements of legislation can be. Therefore, we approached the debate recognising that difficult decisions had to be taken and might not always be understood.
	The second issue that I want to touch on is the need for the House to be united in the battle against terrorism. I can well understand that the Home Secretary is a little bruised today. He seems to be flaying around a little. However, I do not believe that the type of yah-boo politics, "I'm tougher against terrorism than you are" will advance us. Conservatives could argue that they suggested that intercept evidence should be taken into account, which would have toughened the legislation. If I wanted to get into yah-boo politics no doubt I would say that it ill became the Government to lecture the House about being tough on terrorism when, on the day of the Committee stage key vote, they introduced legislation to allow on-the-run terrorists in Northern Ireland to go through a farce of a judicial process to be freed. It does not help us to go down that road. It is far better that we all recognise that the House must be seen to be united in the battle against terrorism.
	I certainly take it hard to hear the Home Secretary say that those of us who voted for 28 days are soft on terrorism. I entered politics because my friend was killed by terrorists. Few of my colleagues on this Bench have not been shot at or bombed. I have had two bombs sent to me and I have to have permanent police protection because of the danger from terrorism. Nobody in Northern Ireland would consider me to be soft on terrorists.
	I come from a party that was opposed to internment. Because we are regarded as at least a centre right party, most people would have expected us to support internment. We opposed it and we were right to do so. We saw the effects that it had in Northern Ireland. I am not saying that the 90 days would have been in effect internment, but there were similar features. The impact on the nationalist community at first, and within sections of the Unionist community later when people were picked up, held for long periods and ultimately released, undoubtedly aided those who wanted to stir up the anger of the community against the state. There is no inconsistency in our position that we were opposed to internment.
	From Second Reading, we made it clear to the Home Secretary that we were convinced from the evidence from chief constables and others that he had a case to increase the detention period beyond the existing 14 days, but we were not at that stage convinced that he had made a case to extend it to 90 days. We supported the Government on Second Reading to give the Home Secretary the opportunity to convince us and, frankly, we were open to be convinced. In our own discussions we felt that there certainly was a case to extend the period to 28 days. We were even minded to go as far as 60 days, but no case suggested to us that 90 days was the appropriate length of time. I do not say—and I hope that no one will suggest—that 90 days was right or wrong, or that 28 days is right or wrong. It was a judgment call; it is not an exact science. There are advantages to 90 days and advantages to 28 days, as well as disadvantages to both.
	The overall balance that we struck recognised the dangers involved in a very long period of detention, not simply because the evidence produced in a court might be rejected because of the length of time for which an individual had been examined, but because of the injustices that could be caused as a result, especially for those who might be considered vulnerable. I am reminded of the case that is known in Northern Ireland as the UDR Four. Serving soldiers were charged and convicted of murder. They were later brought before an appeal court and three of them were released, because the convictions were unsafe. The case did not involve individuals who would have felt strange in the company of police officers or unaccustomed to the pressures of the examination to which they were subjected. However, after a period of detention, they made confessions because of the strain of the examination by the police. If that was possible under existing terror laws in Northern Ireland, it would certainly be possible during detention for 90 days. The problem is not only that the courts would find it difficult to rely on such evidence, but the injustice that might arise as a result.
	Like the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), I think that many people would say that we should have a heavy heart if someone were detained for 90 days and then released without charge, because they would feel a sense of injustice. We would have even heavier hearts if allowing detention for 90 days would have prevented a terrorist act from taking place. However, that argument could be advanced for 120 days, 360 days or beyond and that is why we had to make a judgment.
	Our view was that if the police could not come up with at least a holding charge within the time frame that my party was prepared to allow of between 28 and 60 days, it was unlikely that they would be able to produce a more substantive charge by the end of 90 days. The decision that has been reached is the best in the circumstances. The House has settled its mind on the issue and I trust that we can bind the wounds that divided us and move forward, united, in the battle against terrorism.

Mary Creagh: I must start by returning, in the nicest possible way, the gold cup for loyalty that the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) awarded to me earlier after some of my interventions, because I do not believe that the Bill is perfect. It certainly was not perfect in the form in which I first saw it in the middle of September and I still have concerns about it.
	I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) about clauses 6 and 8 those of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about clause 6 especially. The aspect that jumped out at me was the definition of training for terrorism. In the United States, people who had trained the 9/11 bombers had suspicions that the training would be used for nefarious purposes and had alerted the police, although the intelligence was not acted on. Under the Bill, however, they would be guilty of knowing or suspecting if they continued to give that training.
	As a former academic, I also have concerns about my colleagues in education and higher education who may feel inhibited about teaching microbiology, chemistry or other things to students. Their academic freedom might be compromised by a disaffected student or, as is often the case in higher education, an envious colleague who might bring a malicious case against them.
	I am also concerned about what would happen to the people held under the provisions. They will clearly be held not in police facilities but in high-security prisons. I have visited the high-security category A prison in my constituency and seen the conditions in which high-security prisoners are kept. I would not wish that on anyone for any length of time.
	The debate has focused on the nature of the threat that we feel, but we need to return to the basic facts of the Bill.

David Kidney: The House has arrived at a settled position, so it is now our responsibility to make the Bill work. I assume that the other place will revise the Bill, rather than transform it.
	I want to consider the advice that we should give to the police on the rare occasions when a person has been detained for 27 days and not yet charged. I believe the police and the security forces when they say that they are working actively to prevent and deter terrorist attacks on our soil. I understand why they say that they intervene sooner rather than later. We have heard a lot about how the police can get things wrong, but if they get this wrong, the results could be catastrophic, which is why they require time for investigation. We know that delays to an investigation could be caused by the decrypting of computer evidence, inquiries overseas and the tracing of records on the multiple use of pay-as-you-go mobile phones. The police need reasonable suspicion to arrest people, but admissible evidence to charge them. By the end of 28 days, the police will have to decide whether to charge or release. The House must advise them that, if they have not finished their inquiries and do not have admissible evidence, they must release.
	Some people hope that the police will charge people with other offences instead. Liberal Democrat Members say that the police could charge a suspect with a lesser terrorist offence. However, the police advise us that they will not have reached the point at which they can decide to charge because they will not have the evidence to charge a person with a terrorist offence at all.
	Some people have suggested that, if a person is charged with terrorism and must thus be put before a court, the court would of course refuse bail. However, the Hayman briefing note points out that a terrorist was granted bail and left the country, but the police subsequently believed that he was a prime conspirator, so that assertion does not help us. Conservative Members have said that a person could be charged for other reasons, such as not giving the decryption key to the police. However, that would mean that the person would have the right to attempt to get bail, which would interfere with questioning after charge.
	If we have to change the law to allow people to be questioned after charge and to stop them being granted bail, but if no one says for how much longer after 28 days such questioning may go on, we will end up in the same position that we would have reached under the Government's proposal. However, we would have done more damage to our system and given more ammunition to those who are against us and say through their propaganda that the police make trumped-up charges, keep people in and question them until they get their evidence.

John Bercow: The Government say that the main provisions of the Bill are necessary. As William Pitt said as long ago as 1783:
	"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom: it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
	The debate has, on the whole, taken place in a good-tempered and sometimes even convivial fashion, so let me clear: I do not suggest for one moment that the Prime Minister is a tyrant. I think he is a patriot and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said, a person of remarkable qualities and courage. I think that sometimes he is right. I happen to think on this occasion that he is wrong. It is a question of an honest difference of opinion—a concept that I hope the Government and their Back Benchers would be prepared to recognise.
	Specifically, the kernel of my objection to the Bill in its current form—as it was my objection on Second Reading—is that it contains too broad a range of powers, which are too vaguely defined and threaten too much damage, in return for too little benefit. I want to focus on a couple of the arguments that the Government have advanced in support of it. Neither of them strikes me as compelling.
	One argument is to say that the public want it. That, frankly, will not do. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) argued in a powerful contribution, we cannot reduce ourselves to a situation in which we accept that legislation should be formulated, defended and passed on the basis of survey research or an opinion poll. I argue—I think legitimately so—that we should heed the words of Edmund Burke who, in his letter to the electors of Bristol in 1774, said that he was their Member of Parliament and representative, and in that capacity he owed them not merely his industry, but his judgment, and he betrayed, instead of serving them, if he sacrificed his judgment to their opinion.
	We must be prepared to look at the merits of the case. If we are not robust enough emotionally and intellectually to withstand the rather downmarket, low-grade and substandard attacks on us that will emanate from the veritable organ of public opinion, The Sun newspaper, we should not be in this place. I want to argue the case on its merits.
	The second argument that the Government advance, to which we have to pay significant attention, but which I do not regard as conclusive, is that the police tell us that the power is necessary. I was concerned by the argument of the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks), who said that he was guided by that argument because we have to listen to the experts. We have a responsibility to listen to, but not be overwhelmingly persuaded by, the experts' view. That is especially so if we are not told of the evidential basis for that view. The argument, "The police say it's necessary, and that's good enough for me", may be good enough for some hon. Members, but it is not good enough for me.
	I want to know the evidential case for an extension of the period of detention without charge from 14 days to 28 days. I am still not convinced that there is such a case. I certainly should want to be persuaded that there was a compelling evidential case for 90 days. It is my view that there is a better way forward. Intercept evidence should be admissible in court proceedings. I fear that the Home Office is against that because, were the policy adopted, it would require warrants to be issued on the basis of a decision by a judge and not simply on the say-so of a junior Home Office Minister. Nevertheless, it is the right course of action and the Government should adopt it.
	Moreover, there is a better approach. If the security services cannot manage—it is a difficult process because they would have to download computer files, de-encrypt and study the detail—let us have a massive increase in the investment in the personnel, resources and training that are required to enable the police and intelligence services to do their job. I am sad that that argument was not properly explored before the Government contemplated and advocated the abandonment of an historic liberty of the British people. If, in blindfold pursuit of enhanced security, we sacrifice precious liberty we shall end up neither with enhanced security nor with precious liberty. That would be a tragedy. I respect the Government's integrity. I believe that they are motivated by the highest considerations of national protection and public service, but I honestly believe that they are wrong.

Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). I was particularly interested in the comments that he made about the attempt to reintroduce intercept evidence. It is worth pointing out that within the past few days the Australian Government have avoided a serious attack—we assume by Islamist fundamentalists. There was excellent intelligence work, excellent intelligence gathering and excellent police work. Yet that Government are now wrangling over whether they should extend their period of detention up to that huge limit of 14 days.
	We have had some very interesting and helpful speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the Floor. One of the best speeches came from the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Bill Etherington), who touched with great principle on a number of subjects, not least was internment. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) spoke equally well but from a different point of view. The hon. Members for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) talked of matters of high principle. Those speeches sit in stark contrast with that of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), who made a rather bitter speech that impugned many people's intentions and many people's honour within the House.
	One of the most moving speeches was from the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). He began by talking about the need to get through and beyond and to grow up from yah-boo politics. He, too, mentioned the juxtaposition of internment as opposed to 28 days and 90 days. He spoke also, movingly, about the need for the House to combine across the parties in the fight against terrorism. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) were particularly helpful and illuminating. I agree with him that it does not seem that the Bill falls within the category of emergency legislation. I will deal in more detail with the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in a moment.
	I thought that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkland—[Interruption.] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, I was referring to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). The Falklands are a long way from home. I am sure that his constituents will not be grateful for that slip. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting series of points but failed to look outside the fact that the Bill should go much further than it attempts to do at present.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe made that point exactly correctly when he talked about the terrorists' aim to produce an overreaction inside this country. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) touched cleverly on that. He made the point that longer detention gives a greater possibility of evidence being obtained under duress. That is certainly something of which I have person experience. I shall return to that.
	The speeches that started the debate need to be examined in a little more detail. The Home Secretary started with the theme of internment. Whether one uses the term or whether, like the hon. Member for Belfast, East, one merely touches on it as having parallels with the problems in Northern Ireland, the one thing that has convinced me of the need to go no further than 28 days was my experience of internment in Northern Ireland. I suspect the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality would disagree, and he is welcome to do so, but there are parallels. There are similarities and dissimilarities. In a number of arrests that I carried out, people said to me, "I have never lifted a hand against the Crown forces. Yes, I am a nationalist. Yes, I am even a republican. But the thing that persuaded me and persuaded others was my unlawful detention for a long and unnecessary period." I cannot help but feel that, as a number of right hon. and hon. Members said today, if we introduce a period greater than 28 days—I am unhappy even with that—we are in grave danger of producing discontented people who will go back to the communities from which they came and spread the word of resentment against the Government.
	Interestingly, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), in an intervention, spoke about the charge of sedition and why that has not been used. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has done such a brilliant job of leading on the Bill through all its stages, dealt in some depth with the nonsense of glorification and indirect incitement. He posed the question why no preachers of hate have been charged under current legislation. He went on to speak about the definition of terrorism and about the Government's vacillation, which has done them no favours over the past 10 days or so.
	If the House is to continue to consider only legislation, we would do well to concentrate on the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe who spoke of the Bill as mere gesture. We must get right the period of detention that we impose upon our citizens before they are charged, but if the Bill really were emergency legislation, it should have been dealt with immediately after the attacks in July. We made that offer to the Government at the time. I fail to understand why we spend so much time concentrating on legislation which, after all, will not deter a terrorist from carrying out the new form of terrorism, about which we have heard so much today. If the Bill were not merely a gesture, we would have considered the concrete measures needed to protect our people and physically stop such attacks happening again.
	I regret that the Government have changed their position several times. I thought last week that the Home Secretary would reach some accommodation with us that allowed the whole House to go forward together. Sadly, I believe that the Prime Minister changed the Home Secretary's mind. That has weakened the Government's position, both in their own eyes and in the eyes of the public. I also very much regret the way the Association of Chief Police Officers has been used to make political points and, to borrow the words of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, to lobby and not to brief. Those are powerful words.
	We will support the Bill. Nevertheless, I am grateful to Opposition Members and to Government Members for making it a very much more sensible and reasonable Bill, which I hope will stand us in good stead in the future.

Hazel Blears: Perhaps he has, eventually, after a great deal of discussion.
	I understand that the hon. Gentleman finds the concept of glorification distasteful; I find people who indulge in glorification more than distasteful—they are a genuine and serious threat to the security of the nation. We will have to disagree on that basis.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) for his support for various aspects of the Bill. He made several points, including one about threshold test. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) has raised that matter on several occasions. It is slightly lower than the evidential test in terms of what the prosecutor looks to bring. He suggested that charging on the basis of the threshold test rather than the evidential test would be an easy alternative to a lengthier pre-detention period. I am not sure whether he knows that, if one charges on the basis of the threshold test, one must get the evidence to fulfil the evidential test within one or two days of choosing to charge on the threshold test. It is not the panacea or solution that he suggests.

Roger Gale: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on securing a debate on a subject of incredible importance to Kent Members of Parliament. It has got to be wrong that one of the most beautiful counties in the country—a county that is the garden of England, and which has phenomenal natural resources and proximity to the capital city—should also host some of the highest levels of social deprivation not just in the south-east, but in the country. East Kent, Thanet and parts of Dover—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dover (Gwyn Prosser) is unable to be here this afternoon, but I am sure that he would agree with me—host levels of deprivation that people in the metropolis would probably find hard to grasp. Much of that deprivation has been imported. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, it is not the result of bad local government—quite the reverse. As he also said, Kent is a flagship council—it has been performing superbly since Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart took over what was indubitably a basket-case and turned it round. The economy of the country has, in the past dozen or so years, come on in leaps and bounds.
	Nevertheless, what we face, and have faced continually in the 22 years for which I have been a Member of Parliament, is an influx of social problems. Throughout the 1980s, east Kent, and particularly Margate in my constituency, suffered from what became known as the dole-on-sea syndrome, as the unemployed from around the country and Ireland came to Thanet to live in seaside hotels and guesthouses, on the dole. As that problem was solved, what has been described as a wave of asylum seekers hit Kent. Dover and Thanet in particular have borne the brunt of that and of the social, cultural, educational and medical problems that arrived with people from some of the most deprived places in Europe and, indeed, the world. That has placed an enormous strain on the county.
	In tandem with that, there has been an influx of retiring people, many from the east end of London—people who spent their honeymoons in Margate 30, 40 or even 50 years ago and wanted to retire to the dream of a seaside home. They are now living in genteel and, sometimes, less-than-genteel and rather sad poverty. In many cases, one partner in the relationship has died and the other is left on very strained resources. Those people, I have to say to the Minister, are the ones who end up running out of money and being supported, not by the east London boroughs, not by Tower Hamlets, not by Islington, but by Kent county council.
	Kent is paying for the placements in retirement homes, but we have seen a diminution in the available care. Homes have closed in their dozens because there is not the funding in the east of the county to make them commercially viable—they are, after all, businesses. In the west and north of the country, homes have thrived, but not by making provision for the elderly of Kent. Those homes are, as my hon. Friend rightly says, accommodating clientele being paid for by the London boroughs at £1,600 a week in funding from central Government. The Minister has to be able to explain to us, the representatives of these constituents, why a granny in Kent is worth a third of a granny coming from Islington. That is what we are talking about. Central Government gives money to Islington, for example, and the council buys space in Kent because it cannot be bothered to make provision for its own elderly, and still pockets a healthy balance.

Roger Gale: I am not talking about Kent county council's old people's homes, which, by modern seaside standards, are simply not viable. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go down that route, I can tell him that Campfield, in my constituency, is about to be closed by the county council because it cannot meet the standards required under regulations. That has been the case way down the line. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that somehow the county council should be able to keep open homes that do not meet today's modern standards or offer the desired facilities, I have to say that I do not agree with him. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that Kent ought to be refurbishing, rebuilding, modernising and reopening these homes, I might just agree with him, if Kent had the money to do it.

Roger Gale: That is incorrect, as there were severe implications about the quality of the homes involved. Those Opposition Members who know something about the matter did oppose elements of the 2000 Act—I have to be careful, as I chaired the Bill in Standing Committee—but on the basis that taking away an en suite lavatory from an elderly person merely to provide an extra square metre of floor space was a nonsense. To be frank, the elderly person involved was not likely to get out of bed and play football, so a lavatory was of more use than the space. There are many other examples that I could give the House.
	The Registered Homes Act 1984 led to improved standards in both local authority and private residential homes by the end of the decade. The provision then was good, but lack of money has made it impossible to maintain that standard. The result now is that a granny in Kent is worth a third of one in Islington: why?
	Another difficulty is the problem of dumped cared-for children. In the social services they are known, rather revoltingly, as "Friday afternoon children". When, for emergency reasons, a borough in west London has to place a child on a Friday afternoon, he or she is sent to Thanet. No provision is made for education or medical care and there is no consultation with the county council. There is no advance preparation at all. Does the Minister think that that is satisfactory?
	Kent county council's Thanet report spells out what happens, in stark terms. The young people involved are taken out of their environment in London and removed from their friends, family, extended family and school. They are taken from the familiar area in which they were brought up and dumped in a place where they have no sense of ownership at all. Is it then surprising that they resort to daubing graffiti and to engaging in antisocial behaviour, vandalism and truancy? Of course it is not.
	Best practice in social services says that those young people should be placed as close to home as possible, yet they arrive in Kent with no provision having been made for their education or medical care, and they receive no attention worth speaking of from social services. No resources follow them to provide the policing and other back-up that they need. They are simply dumped.I have spoken to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), who has responsibility for these matters, and asked for a moratorium. To date, nothing has happened, even though the Thanet report has been on her desk for months. The cost incurred in looking after these dumped children is another one that the Government are not meeting.
	I come now to the question of asylum costs. Opposition Members in Kent have fought long and hard for the money that the Government acknowledge that the county should have to meet the costs incurred by asylum seekers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, we have just about cleared the slate up to 2004, although that has involved rather more give than take on our part. The Home Office agreed the figures—grudgingly—and has finally shelled out for the costs incurred up to 2004.

Michael Fallon: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on the measured way in which he set the scene, although, inevitably, some of us will feel more strongly about such issues than others. He described the problem as the perception that Kent is particularly affluent, which is the issue at the heart of this debate.
	We do not have to take my hon. Friend's word on that problem because, in February, when I complained about the funding for Sevenoaks on the local government finance report, the Minister's predecessor told me that it was an affluent area and that was why we had been badly treated. If the present Minister cannot recall the basis of my complaint, I shall tell him, because it was very simple. In terms of the increase in per capita funding since 1998 for all the district councils, county councils and police authorities in England, Sevenoaks was 424th out of 424 for percentage change. We were the worst treated. In fact, we had no increase at all and were among four or five councils that had actually been cut in per capita terms.
	The House does not have to believe my hon. Friend. The Minister himself said that our funding had been cut because Sevenoaks was an affluent area. It is true, of course, that some constituencies are more affluent than others, but it is equally true that there are serious pockets of deprivation in every constituency, including mine. Parts of north Sevenoaks, and especially in the town of Swanley, can match any of the deprived areas about which my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) spoke so eloquently. The problem with the funding allocation is that it does not properly reflect the serious pockets of deprivation that exist alongside some of the more affluent areas. It does not respect the fact that all our district councils and the county council have to provide the same basic services as councils in areas that are better treated by the Government—perhaps in the north. We all need the same basic services, so it is wrong that councils are treated unequally.
	My hon. Friends made some powerful points about the care homes scandal, asylum costs and so on. I have three short points. The first is that the Government must deal with the widespread perception, or allegation, that they are covertly switching funding from south to north. The Minister may try to deny it—he may even admit it—but it would be for the good health of the debate generally that, if there is such a policy, it is made explicit and Ministers have the guts to say that they are moving money from southern districts to northern metropolitan districts or the larger conurbations. If Ministers are doing that, they should say so.
	It is remarkable that if you look at the league table, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the list of 424 district councils, county councils and police authorities to which I referred—you may not find that your local authority is anywhere near the top of the table, where there is a strong north-east, north-west and midlands flavour. Few southern councils appear there. If the Government, through their decisions about annual local government allocations, are moving money from south to north that is their decision. They are the Government so they are free to do that, but they should at least be explicit about it and accept what they are doing, so that they can be judged accordingly by my constituents and, doubtless, by the constituents of the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) and for Gillingham (Paul Clark)
	My second point is about London weighting. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I return to that point, as I have been making it constantly since 1997. London weighting is a shambles. Time and again, I have pointed out that police officers can resign from the Kent force to join the Metropolitan police and immediately earn an extra £3,000 a year, due to the effect of London weighting, but remain in the same housing in west Kent. Nurses in our hospitals in west and north Kent can transfer across the line to work in a London hospital and gain London weighting.
	The arrangements are different for each public service, but in each case that I raised, because the arguments were so overwhelming, Ministers responded—I must be fair to them about that—but only in an ad hoc way. The Kent health authority was given additional money to deal with the problem. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) accepted that there was a problem and gave a one-off allocation to deal with it.
	Two years later, the same thing happened in relation to the police settlement. Kent police authority was given additional funding to tackle the problem, which was more acute in the west Kent than the north Kent area: in Tunbridge Wells, Sevenoaks and Tonbridge, we lost about 30 officers in a single year. Ministers had to respond, but they did so in a completely ad hoc way, from service to service.
	If we are talking about joined-up government, someone must consider London and south-east weighting regionally. It is absurd that some weightings in London extend outwards to Hampshire or parts of Essex, but not to Kent. It is absurd that some people are eligible in some public services, but not in others. The whole thing must be considered more coherently and those of us on the fringe of London should not have to beg each time for additional resources in respect of individual funding streams. The whole of Kent should be classified properly, with London, as a high-cost area because that is exactly what it is.
	My third and final point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells touched on, is that I am quite sure, having served my constituents for the past eight years, that we are not getting our fair crack of the whip in terms of spending on infrastructure. The Minister has a north-western constituency.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am sorry to keep picking on the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling. The Leybourne bypass is being constructed as we speak. Many road and infrastructure projects have occurred in that period. I told the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) the amount of money that Kent county council has received. That was only to tackle road congestion and public transport. There is also the £70 million that the council received It said in its press statement that it got more than anyone else in the country. On roads, public transport, schools, police and hospitals, what we heard from Conservative Members was that Kent has not been getting its fair share when that simply is not the case.
	I look round my constituency and see the investment that has taken place, such as new £2 million health centres in Snodland and in Larkfield. That money is being invested in our communities and making a huge difference to the quality of life of the people whom we represent.

Jonathan R Shaw: I know the Kent and Sussex hospital very well. I used to take adults with learning disabilities when they sadly had accidents to the hospital when I worked in that area. The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong when he talks about an advanced stage. The site had not been purchased and the money had not been allocated. What does he mean by "advanced stage"? There was no provider and plans had not been worked up. It was not at an advanced stage. It was a pipe dream. It took a Labour Government to allocate resources. We have the largest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS. There has been investment in the Maidstone hospital, in the Medway maritime hospital and other hospitals throughout the county.
	Waiting lists have been mentioned. People had to wait for 18 months when Labour was elected to office. This year, it is will be down to six months. The waiting will continue to come down. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like this, but my constituents have seen the investment put in to my constituency and the huge difference that it has made to their lives. Despite the disgraceful attack upon a local authority that could not defend itself in February 1997, the infrastructure, resources and public services of the county are in a much better state now. I know because I worked in Kent for 10 years and I have lived in it for all my life. Public services are in much better shape now. I and my hon. Friends throughout the county are proud of that.

Julian Brazier: I have been listening with interest to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw). I intended to be brief but the hon. Gentleman has provoked me to speak at slightly greater length than I intended.
	The distinction should be made very clear between current and capital spending. I shall comment on what the hon. Gentleman said about capital spending. About 95 per cent. of the examples that he gave involved capital expenditure whereas the basic submission of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), apart from the remarks that he made at the end of his contribution, related almost entirely to the problems in current spending. Yes, there are some problems of infrastructure and I shall start by saying something about that, but the main issue is the ever-tightening garrotte on the level of current spending—rate support grant—available to Kent county council for people in old people's homes, children in care and so on.
	On the capital side, the hon. Gentleman really must find out about Kent's road programme. The last Government invested a fortune in Kent's roads—the building of the extra sections of the M20 for the link-up with the channel tunnel, the dualling of the Thanet Way, in which my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet played such a vital role over all those years, and which was finished about 18 months after the present Government took office, and the dualling of the A2 extension of the M2. There was one programme after another, all carried out by the Conservative Government. Under the present Government, there has been virtually no capital expenditure, apart from the odd tiny bypass in the road programme, and money available for road repairs has declined.
	There are other areas that I could challenge. I shall mention one on the capital side. The hon. Gentleman made great play of investment in the NHS. Certainly, a great deal of money has been invested in new hospitals in other parts of the country, but it is in east Kent that there were two and three-day queues in casualty, after the Government took office. There was a two-page spread in The Sun about people who spent three days on beds in the Kent and Canterbury hospital accident and emergency unit. That happened on the present Government's watch, not under the previous Government.
	The burden of the debate and almost the whole of the submission from my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) was on current spending and the tourniquet that the Government are applying to the support grant for current spending in the county of Kent. I remember arguing once with a group of people in the Tea Room—I have some friends in the Labour party, and I count the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford as one of them—about whether it is worse to be poor in an area neighbouring better-off areas or to be poor in a poor area. The answer must be that it is much worse to be poor in south-east England than in a relatively deprived area, for several obvious reasons. One is that it is much more expensive to provide support for poor people in an area with neighbouring better-off areas, because it is a struggle to attract well qualified people into the public services there. Another reason is that food and other basic amenities are more expensive near a better-off area.
	In east Kent we have a particular problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet said, in parts of east Kent and one or two other parts of Kent we have some of the worst deprivation statistics anywhere in southern England. In some wards in Thanet, the statistics are some of the worst in the country. However, the fact that we are relatively close to the capital means that we have serious additional problems. Against that background, the dire figures take some explaining.
	I will not go through the equation on the funding of the elderly, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells so effectively covered. I shall take the parallel equation for children in care. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet is right about the dumping of children in care in Kent, without the associated money always coming with them in knock-on areas such as education and health. Putting that to one side, how can it be right that a child in care in Kent gets from the Government £263 a week, compared with £425 in Blackpool, an area in the north of England where costs are lower, and £1,373 in a London borough such as Islington?
	Hon. Members will know that over the years I have taken a particular interest in children in care, particularly through my role in the all-party group on adoption and fostering. I am horrified at what is happening to our local social services as a result of the squeeze on funding. I shall give an example. It is no good talking about shiny new buildings and the rest of it; we are talking about current money to cover current costs. One of the effects is that almost no provision is left for the most awkward fostering cases. In the old days, special placements would have been provided, because it was acknowledged that those cases were simply too difficult for most foster parents to cope with. The money is no longer available for that. I spoke recently to foster parents who told me that several of their colleagues had given up fostering because children had been placed with them with whom they were simply incapable of dealing.
	I am obviously pursuing the matter with Kent county council social services, but the system is creaking. How can it be right that an area where costs are high gets one sixth of the funding per child of some London boroughs? Those figures are not fiction. They are in a letter that is signed by Sandy Bruce-Lockhart. It is the last letter that Sir Sandy wrote before he retired as leader of a council that everybody, from the district auditor to the people who recommended him to Her Majesty the Queen for his recent knighthood, recognises as excellent. The figures are his, not mine.
	I hope that some of our constituents will read the debate. When the Minister for Local Government replies, he can score some points about shiny new buildings and infrastructure. In making points about infrastructure, he can forget that Kent has been chosen for two of the four population growth points, and all the additional requirements that that creates. I do not believe that we have the infrastructure that we need or that we get our fair share of it. However, this evening's debate is mostly not about that.
	The debate is about the sheer unfairness of a formula which, on the first readjustment, led to an increase per capita of funding of every single member of the then Cabinet, and, for the second consecutive time—the third time in a row if one includes the decision not to update the deprivation indices from 1991–2001—resulted in Kent being among the three or four worst funded councils. That cannot be right.
	The Minister must tell us why a granny or a child in care in Kent are so much less important than their counterparts in London and other parts of the country. I look forward to his reply.

Phil Woolas: Of course, the 30 per cent. real terms increase has not been distributed equally across all social services authorities, but all social services authorities have had increases. Let us acknowledge that. That is an average of 2.8 per cent. a year above inflation, and further increases are planned over the 2004 spending review period. In addition, investment in child care and early years will increase by more than three quarters of a billion pounds between 2004–05 and 2007–08.
	Hon. Gentlemen have referred to the pressures facing police authorities. I must remind them, however, that we have provided substantial extra resources for policing: as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford pointed out, there have never been as many police officers in Kent. Of course, I acknowledge the real-world difficulties that the hon. Member for North Thanet pointed out, but Government support for police funding has increased by 39 per cent. since 2000.
	The figures are unprecedented. On average, police formula grant has increased by nearly 4.8 per cent., including specific grants of £766 million in 2005–06. The specific grant increase in funding direct to police forces is more than 5 per cent. Specific grants enable us to target funds where they are particularly needed. The crime fighting fund, for example, has enabled us to secure record police officer numbers. No police force has received less than a 3.75 per cent. general grant increase this year. That is substantially above police pay increases and inflation, and above-floor increases range up to 6.8 per cent. Again, the points being made by hon. Gentlemen are relative, not absolute.

Phil Woolas: Again, the hon. Gentleman will have to be patient in respect of the future. The argument about population figures, however, has been put to me in the past three months by shire councils of all political parties, county councils of all political parties, and metropolitan authorities of all political parties, and they cannot all be right, can they? The hon. Gentleman made a cogent case—I say that genuinely—on behalf of his constituents. I do not want to score points—actually, I do want to score points—but we are talking about a context of increasing resources and of problems being relative not absolute.
	We have had some very interesting contributions. If I could have a bit of fun, because this is the end of a heavy parliamentary week, I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford for pointing out the parliamentary debate on 5 February 1997, when we had a Conservative Government and a Labour-Liberal county council. Conservative Members, some of whom are in the Chamber this evening, were blaming all the problems of people in Kent on the nasty, malicious, Labour-Liberal county council, and attributing all the good in Kent to Conservative Government policies. Now we have a situation in which Conservative Members are praising the Conservative-led Kent county council—I acknowledge that it has an excellent rating from the Audit Commission—and blaming all the problems on the Labour Government, as if in May 1997 all the issues in Kent were stood on their head. I could have some fun; indeed, I will.
	Mr. Jonathan Aitken, then Member of Parliament for South Thanet, said
	"I congratulate my hon. Friend on his splendid recitation of the high economic crimes and misdemeanours"
	of Kent county council. Dame Peggy Fenner said:
	"It is an indescribable insult to Medway",
	describing the actions of the Labour-Liberal county council. The then Member of Parliament for Dover, Mr. David Shaw, spoke of
	"the wasteful use of staff in Kent".
	There was then a reference to
	"a wicked example of precisely what is taking place."—[Official Report, 5 February 1997; Vol. 919, c. 946–48.]

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman, who shouts that from a sedentary position, is in danger of becoming the Chicken Licken of the Tory party. The channel tunnel link was a Conservative Government initiative, and the policy was that it should be paid for entirely and exclusively with private money. The scheme collapsed, and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister negotiated a package to save it. Is the hon. Gentleman denying the Labour Government's crucial intervention to ensure the modernisation of the channel tunnel and the creation of a fast link? He virtually implied earlier that we are not allowed motorways up north. Goodness me! The idea that there are more motorways up north than down south is ridiculous.

Phil Woolas: The policy of this Government is that all areas should share in prosperity. I was asked for an assurance that there is no policy of northern bias by stealth, but that observation is based on the assumption—one could almost say prejudice—that up north we are all poor. The second richest county in the UK is Cheshire, and there are bits of the north and the north-west that are beautiful, just as there are bits of the south and south-east that are poor. In the run-up to the local government settlement, the special interest group of municipal authorities accused us of not giving money to the north and of giving it all to the southern softies. I apologise to SIGOMA; I was paraphrasing. Equally, southern authorities are accusing us of the reverse. However, the formulas are based not on geographical distribution, but on a genuine attempt to achieve fairness that is being made in the context of a rising tide.So I can give the assurance that has been sought on this issue, and if Members look at the figures, they will see that my point is borne out by the position of, say, Lancashire, in relation to other county councils. The Government's policy is based on the view that the differences within regions are as great, if not greater, than they are between regions. The poorest areas in the country are overwhelmingly in London, and some of the richest are in Cheshire and Yorkshire. A very fair point was made about pockets of poverty, and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) relayed his interesting conversation in the Tea Room about where it is better to be poor. I do not want to be drawn into that, because the truth is that there is a balance in this regard. It is more difficult to get a job in a poorer area, but I acknowledge that there are perhaps extra costs associated with living in a pocket of poverty in a richer area.
	I can assure the House that the horribly titled super-output areas—a statistical description of how we measure deprivation—enable us to identify deprivation at a sub-ward level, and to provide a better analysis of the allocation of money. It is fair to point out that it would be wrong to assume that there are no pockets of deprivation in the better-off areas. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) described Sevenoaks as an affluent area, and that that is why it is badly funded. Sevenoaks is a relatively well-off area, but there are no doubt pockets of poverty and deprivation within that. Our policy is to ensure that our funding formula addresses that. On the other side of the coin, I would not like to take the hon. Gentleman to, say, Knowsley and argue that point too strongly. The breadth and depth of deprivation in some towns and cities is significant, and the Government are successfully addressing that as well.
	The hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich had said that Sevenoaks was being badly funded because it was affluent. I suspect that my right hon. Friend said that Sevenoaks had received an above-inflation funding increase, like everywhere else, but acknowledged that it was relatively less well-funded than other areas. I hope that I have made my point.
	The hon. Gentleman made an important point about London weighting and said that pay policy and housing policy differed across sectors. One could say that that is simply a result of the bargaining mechanisms that we have. There is also a policy to try to ensure that more affordable housing is available for key workers. I recognise, however, that London weighting is a problem for areas on the outer ring of London. I would include in the equation the difficulties and differences resulting from the area cost adjustment. Incidentally, those systems were not set up by this Government, but the hon. Gentleman's point is worth careful consideration, and I thank him for it.
	I do not want to go into too much detail on infrastructure. I do not accept the general premise that the Government have not invested in the infrastructure in Kent. On motorways, the other side of the coin would be the accusation from these Benches that Kent got its motorways first. We used to love coming down south and getting on their fast motorways. We waited from 1964 for the completion of the M60 around Greater Manchester. I was delighted to be there when it was opened and delighted that it was my Government who opened it. We did not build that motorway because it was up north; we built it because we wanted to improve the prosperity of the country and make everybody better off.
	I have made the point about Ashford and the rail link. I hope that the House will acknowledge that investment in infrastructure has been substantial. Points have been made about the need for more water, sewerage, schools and so on, but planning policy, as updated by this Government—in PPS6, I think—acknowledges the point about infrastructure.
	The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells made a point about the 1991 population statistics. It would be wrong of me to pre-empt the settlement. What I would say is that that is true for everyone, and not all the examples of new developments in south-east England—I have mentioned Herne bay—are the result of the ODPM's growth policy, but we do need to provide houses for people.

Roger Gale: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could clarify something on the record because it might help a lot. He has to accept that because of the general presumption that we need lots more houses in the south-east, local authorities are terrified of turning down planning applications on grounds of lack of infrastructure. There is a fear that all a developer has to do is go to appeal, and because of the ODPM's attitude, the appeal is bound to be granted, at the local ratepayer's expense. Whether the development is designated by the Deputy Prime Minister is almost immaterial; the effect is the same.

Phil Woolas: I listened to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes as a constituency MP, and take it at face value. I hope that what he describes is not the case: it is certainly not the Government's policy to encourage such a development or such attitudes.
	These matters are more appropriate for my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, but we have talked about them on many occasions, in preparation for this debate and for others. I can assure the House that the Government do not intend to build anywhere and everywhere, including on the green belt. That is not our policy, and no such suggestion is borne out by the facts. However, the hon. Member for North Thanet used the word "fear", and that is something that we should look at.
	Fear has no place in the process, but we must not forget that housing demand is led by changes in lifestyle, greater longevity and other factors. On the whole, it is not governed by population increase. There is therefore a knock-on effect for schools and care homes, and for the problem of old people from Islington being "dumped"—as the hon. Member for North Thanet termed it—in his constituency. We want good-quality care to be provided for all our old people.
	Finally, I want to put on record some of the statistics that I promised earlier. In the past five years, Kent has received an annual average increase in formula grant of 5.4 per cent. In total, it has received an extra £200 million in grant over that period, on a like-for-like basis. That substantial annual increase is above the rate of inflation each year. Over the same period, Kent has increased council tax by an average of 7.4 per cent.
	Moreover, Kent's provision of personal social services for adults this year amounts to some £278 million, up by 6.1 per cent. from last year. The county's allocation per head of population is £278. Cumulative growth in cash terms in the local authority since this Government took office has been 53.9 per cent.
	The figures involved are clearly substantial. This year alone, Kent has received a 7 per cent. increase in total resources for children's social services. As a three-star social service authority, no part of Kent's social services resources is ring fenced, so the county can target those resources at the greatest need. I have listened to the arguments advanced by Opposition Members in this debate, but the background is that resources have been rising across the board.
	I could give similar statistics for all the district authorities in the Kent area, but I shall concentrate on Tunbridge Wells, as the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells chose the topic for this Adjournment debate. In the past six years, there have been increases of 4.1, 4.3, 3.6, 3.7, 2.6 and 3.7 per cent, respectively. Those increases do not amount to a fortune, but they are above inflation.
	The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells made some important points on his constituents' behalf that merit due consideration in discussions about the formula review. Representations have been made by Kent county council and the district councils in the area. They are being given due consideration and, as I said earlier, Kent county council is part of one of the working parties looking at how the formula works.
	However, like the rest of the public sector, local authorities must constantly look for things that they can do differently to keep costs down. Opposition Members want to debate ways in which the central tax payer should pay more and more and more. They have come to accept that this Government's economic policy is so successful that there is more money, although I am sure that any proposal for tax increases by central Government would cause them to call more Adjournment debates on Thursday evenings, when once again they would pursue the Chicken Licken strategy.
	Once more, I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, and congratulate him on securing this debate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty nine minutes past Six o'clock.